What's new

US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general

thorosius

FULL MEMBER
Joined
May 24, 2007
Messages
353
Reaction score
0
US can forget about winning in Iraq: top retired general

SAN ANTONIO, Texas, June 3, 2007 (AFP) - The man who led coalition forces in Iraq during the first year of the occupation says the United States can forget about winning the war.

"I think if we do the right things politically and economically with the right Iraqi leadership we could still salvage at least a stalemate, if you will -- not a stalemate but at least stave off defeat," retired Army Lieutenant General Ricardo Sanchez said in an interview.

Sanchez, in his first interview since he retired last year, is the highest-ranking former military leader yet to suggest the Bush administration fell short in Iraq.

"I am absolutely convinced that America has a crisis in leadership at this time," Sanchez told AFP after a recent speech in San Antonio, Texas.

"We've got to do whatever we can to help the next generation of leaders do better than we have done over the past five years, better than what this cohort of political and military leaders have done," adding that he was "referring to our national political leadership in its entirety" - not just President George W. Bush.

Sanchez called the situation in Iraq bleak and blamed it on "the abysmal performance in the early stages and the transition of sovereignty."

He included himself among those who erred in Iraq's crucial first year after Saddam.

Sanchez took command in the summer of 2003 and oversaw the occupation force amid an insurgency that has sparked a low-grade civil war in Iraq.

He was in the middle of some of the most momentous events of the war, among them the dissolution of the Iraqi army and barring millions of Baath Party members from government jobs: two actions seen as triggering the rebellion among Sunni Moslems, who fell from power with Saddam Hussein.

Sanchez is also most closely identified with the Abu Ghraib scandal, which occurred on his watch.

Though he was cleared of wrongdoing by an Army probe, Abu Ghraib's searing images of naked prisoners humiliated by a rogue torture squad cost Sanchez an almost certain fourth star in the Senate, which approves general officer promotions.

Sanchez, 56, declined to talk about Abu Ghraib or other key events of the war, or say who was to blame for what went wrong.

"That's something I am still struggling with and it's not about blame because there's nobody out there that is intentionally trying to screw things up for our country," he said. "They were all working to do the best damn job they can to get things right."

Despite those good intentions, Americans will be forced to "answer the question what is victory, and at this point I'm not sure America really knows what victory is," said Sanchez, who is thinking of writing a tell-all book about his year in Baghdad.

Sanchez said a large troop commitment would be needed for years to come but conceded it is "very questionable" if Americans would support it.

Still, he said, "the coalition cannot afford to precipitously withdraw and leave the Iraqis to their own devices."

Andrew Krepinevich, a former aide to three defense secretaries who heads the Center for Strategic and Budgetary Assessments in Washington, shared that assessment.

"What you are looking at are three factions who are profoundly mistrustful of one another," he said. "Iraq is a country where those on top have brutally repressed those on the bottom, and that is the way they look at seizing power and maintaining power."

Retired Army General Barry McCaffrey, a ground commander in the 1990-1991 Gulf War, said he's trying to remain optimistic but thinks domestic support for the war will evaporate within 36 months.

"I personally don't think it's over yet," said McCaffrey, who recently toured Iraq. He said he thinks General David Petraeus, the coalition commander in Iraq, and US Ambassador Ryan Crocker can stave off a wider civil war.

"The question is, can the ambassador and Petraeus open reconciliation talks among Iraqis, and (Secretary of State) Condi Rice keep the regional powers from meddling any more in Iraq? The jury's out," he said.

http://www.politicalgateway.com/news/read/83243
 
. . . .
What is winning?

Dear Adux,

What is winning ? A very comprehensive and complex question.

The best USA can gain in Iraq is friendly state like Saudi Arabia where the the common people hate them but the rulers are with them. In this scenario the US will emerge winners as they will have indirect control of Iraq oil.

The worst is that Iraq is devided into three parts, Shia, Sunni and Kurds. Again the US will be winners as Kurds love the Americans and most oil fields are located in present Kurd area.

The only loosers will be the Iraqi people in both sceanarios.

Just my views.

Regards
 
.
This is way misinformation so I had to jump in.
You two guys totally took the winning in wrong sense, news refer to winning (famous) war on terror.
Who says common people of Saudi Arabia hate US. To the contrary I found them mostly appretiative of US in many areas. For this unique reason I always termed Saudi as mini America.
Iraq was a sucide mission from beginning, hence I'm not amazed with news.
If today, I had to decide. I would really divide Iraq in two portions as evenly possible. Human lives (both US and rest of world) are more important than oil.
Kurds is a ethnic group and Kurds living in Iraq are Iraqi and oil fields are also located in South.
 
.
This is way misinformation so I had to jump in.
You two guys totally took the winning in wrong sense, news refer to winning (famous) war on terror.
Who says common people of Saudi Arabia hate US. To the contrary I found them mostly appretiative of US in many areas. For this unique reason I always termed Saudi as mini America.
Iraq was a sucide mission from beginning, hence I'm not amazed with news.
If today, I had to decide. I would really divide Iraq in two portions as evenly possible. Human lives (both US and rest of world) are more important than oil.
Kurds is a ethnic group and Kurds living in Iraq are Iraqi and oil fields are also located in South.

Dear Batman,

Thanks for jumping in the more the merrier. The war on Iraq was never the war on terror as we in UK and USA now unfortunately know. As regards Iraq being devided in two parts its not possible. The Kurds have been for too long in a protected zone (enforced by USA) and now are very comfortable with that. If unfortunately Iraq splits than Kurds will go on their own way ofcourse with some secret agreement with the Turks.

USA will still get the benefit of their oil.

Regards
 
.
There is no chance of dividing Iraq into 2 or 3 parts. The reason being that Kurds will have one of the divided part and most probably the oil rich areas and others (Sunnis and Shias) won't sit and watch. If this happens we have a new war comming between Kurds and other two.
 
.
Shia's and Sunni's cant do anything about Kurd Area, but you are right Kurdistan wouldnt be allowed to become, WHY? cuz Turkey wont let it. You should know more about the region. Kurds love the americans.

Iraq will be divided for sure, if not by America then by Iraqi's themselves it is envitable
 
. .
Let me guess, cuz the Evil Infidels are no match for the great muslim warrior's;
Such Lack of vision.


No! Bcause no one has been able to invade and occupy Afganis for centuries, not even the British or in the recent past the Russians.
 
.
They already won the war. They converted their armed forces into rubble and found the president hiding in a manhole and hung him. What more do you want. This is absolute victory.
 
.
No! Bcause no one has been able to invade and occupy Afganis for centuries, not even the British or in the recent past the Russians.

When you get back from whereever that you are, get back to me
FYI, Russians for that matter even the US hunted and is hunting the Afghans and Iraqi's like rats.

600,000 iraqi's to 4,000 US.....
It is not even funny.
 
.
Let me guess, cuz the Evil Infidels are no match for the great muslim warrior's;
Such Lack of vision.

Time will tell, just wait and see.

PS. spend some time reading about the history before posting.
 
.
This is way misinformation so I had to jump in.
You two guys totally took the winning in wrong sense, news refer to winning (famous) war on terror.
Who says common people of Saudi Arabia hate US. To the contrary I found them mostly appretiative of US in many areas. For this unique reason I always termed Saudi as mini America.
Iraq was a sucide mission from beginning, hence I'm not amazed with news.
If today, I had to decide. I would really divide Iraq in two portions as evenly possible. Human lives (both US and rest of world) are more important than oil.
Kurds is a ethnic group and Kurds living in Iraq are Iraqi and oil fields are also located in South.

By the way how much do you know about Saudi Arabia and its people?
You are probably talking about the Saudis living in NY or London. Right?
Kashif
 
.
Back
Top Bottom